About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
, including the most important negotiating partner of all a, house speaker john boehner. >> the framework i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. >> i feel very good about what we were able to talk about in there. >> we're prepared to put revenue on the table, provided we fix the real problem. >> i feel confident that a solution may be in sight. >> and in terms of the nature of that solution, what was discussed in the meeting was a two-step process in which the leaders and the white house first agree on a framework, an amount of deficit reduction it, both tax increases and spending cuts, and then they kicked the filling in of those details into the early months of 2013. they would do that with a legislative mechanism that provides some assurance to the american people and to the financial markets, guys, that those blanks would be filled in by the time they need to to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> very big blanks. okay. thank you very much. david, a couple words we've heard here are hopeful and encouraged. are you feeling more
back and forth. you had boehner's position from the -- >> i don't want to anger the viewers, you but i think they're looking at obama's words the same way they look it at the polls with the kind of sense of here's what i want to believe. >> if they lose, do they go along with that and say we will accept that or do they push it over the fiscal cliff. you have people on the right and the left who are saying go over. >> in the press conference yesterday, my read of what obama said was we're raising the rates and we're put a structure for eliminating entitlements. >> correct. but if we're talking about rates, if you were playing joe, you would hear that the argument would be that this will never actually work. republicans won't go loochialon it. so some people were suggesting maybe there is a way to do 35% and get rid of deductions. >> but remember was it geithner on -- today is thursday. so this would have been tuesday. he said people are diluting themselves to think we can get where we need to get with loopholes. and i don't know about the right max, but my understanding is i don't think
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
from john boehner and -- >> yeah, from boehner i am. the president has now painted himself -- painted those guys in to -- how many times has he drawn a line in the sand about that high right on 250. he's made a point and he can't possibly go back on that now, can he? >> i think he can. look, i think he's drawing a line on getting money from those people, there people making 250 and above. but he hasn't drawn a line on how he gets that money. he's said at his news conference i'm skeptical that you can do enough in loopholes and exclusions to get the money that we need for a deal from that group. but he also said i'm open to new ideas. so if there is in fact an effort to close some loopholes that gets you some of the way there, you can certainly see the president, i could anyway, compromising somewhere between 35 and 39.6 on a slightly higher rate. if shall be caomebody came up w source of revenue which didn't change the distribution of the tax burden, figure out a way to do it without a top rate. i kind of expect what's going to happen is loophole closing and you end up at like 37 ors
with boehner. but might be the beginning of bargain point. but you get 820 billion. so there's another 800 billion. at this point, the others are saying no cuts to medicare, social security, or anything else. and they have to find another 800 billion. >> the president did not say -- >> we know he has to cut some of those. >> my guess is the gop is saying they're looking at a trillion dollars as the number. >> and you saw what paul ryan said. the house was re-elected. so people re-elected those people in the house for a reason. it's a nonstarter. it's not going to happen. it's not going to be 1.6 billion. 1.6 trillion. to get to four trillion, that would be 2.4. so we said that. he'll go not 3-1 like simpson bowles. he's go one and a half to one. >> that's not going to happen either. >> but what bothers me -- >> the problem is nothing is going to happen. >> what bothers me is i do think you can get to a point where you raise taxes too much and you don't cut spending enough, where you're just funding entitlements by raising taxes and you don't do anything about it. if he had his way, i reall
and the ongoing relationship with boehner and mcconnell because he's going to have to be a different kind of leader with them. he talked about it in the press conference a bit the other day. he needs to reach out to them the way he's reached out to people on staten island and dealt with the two governors, christie and cuomo, who are two pretty demanding guys as well. and based on their public and private comments have been very happy with the president's leadership and his government. >> i just wonder if it's fair to make a parallel when you look at the president's response to sandy which has had and continues to have just devastating effects on the economy for businesses and the reaction to the bp oil spill which seemed slow in coming because that was devastating as well to a different part of the country. >> he certainly was. he was very slow to respond to people in the gulf coast. >> in terms of appearances. >> i think things have changed, though, over the past couple years. and i suspect that, you know, even the president's closest allies will say that it was a very hard adjustment go
think they've already agreed to that. you heard john boehner say that already. we've had voteses in the senate where we've gotten rid of tax credits. i think that's a given. and i think that the vast majority of measures agree with that. the question is how do you do that and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem and that's uncontrolled entitlement spending and a government that has grown massively. >> i think if the house stands for anything, it's cut government spending as tom coburn said and i think we'll have to do more of it. we heard the mandate in 2010 where it was a clear mandate cut spending and we did, we cut $900 billion in spending that he can't like painful tos us. >> we'll continue our call to rise bol politics and make a deal. oufr guests this morning include mike jackson and also david zaslav. and the head of maris group. and douglas holtz-eakin. >> let's talk about eurozone finance ministers meeting to discuss whether to release a new tranche of fund to go greece. the leaders are not expected it to okay the funding despite greec
can tell you that the guys in the house and boehner, they really want to do this, this limiting deductions, limiting loopholes, raising effective rates, but lowering nominal rates. they want to do it that way but the president may say no and those guys in the house will say no and we might, it might happen. >> it might, but look, this is a leadership moment. we have a a leader who now has second term. he's a president. he's a fascinating individual in many respects. he's part of the problem. >> what gives you any indication he'll lead in this case? >> maybe he'll wake up to the fact that he has a chance to cut through the polarization and leave a winning legacy. this is his chance to rise above. give him a button. >> there you go. thank you for that, steve. we have more ahead from steve. coming up, we're going to talk about several stocks on the move ahead of the opening bell. we'll get down to "mad money's" jim cramer. "squawk on the street," jim cramer right after this. sometimes investing opportunities are hard to spot. you have to dig a little. fidelity's etf market tracker
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)